ωonὅiliulă tiin ifiἵήăSἵientifiἵăψoaὄἶἈ

Alexandru Avram – Prof. Dr. Université du Maine (LeMans), France

Carol C pi – Prof. Dr. University of Bucharest
Miron Ciho – Prof. Dr. University of Bucharest
Andreas Gutsfeld – Prof. Dr. Université de Lorraine (Nancy 2), France
Antal Lukacs – Prof. Dr. University of Bucharest
Ecaterina Lung – Prof. Dr. University of Bucharest
Gheorghe-Vlad Nistor – Prof. Dr. University of Bucharest
Christoph Uehlinger – Prof. Dr. Universität Zürich, Switzerland
Daniela Zaharia – Lect. Dr. University of Bucharest

ωomitetulăἶeăReἶaἵ ieήăEἶitoὄialăψoaὄἶ

Florica (Bohîl ea) Mihu ă– University of Bucharest

Corina Ruxandra Gavri - teflea – University of Bucharest
Luciana-Florentina Ghind – University of Bucharest
Lorena Stoica – University of Bucharest
ϊὄago ăH lmagi – University of Bucharest

1
Revista CICSA – ὅeὄieănou / CICSA Journal – New Series

Noua serie a Revistei CICSA (Revista Centrului de Istorie Comparată a Societăților

Antice)ă ἶeἴuteaὐ ă ἵuă ună num ὄă înă ἵaὄeă ἵontὄiἴutoὄiiă ὅuntă înă pὄinἵipală memἴὄiiă afilia iă aiă
Centrului – ὅtuἶen iă aiă ἔaἵult iiă ἶeă Ἑὅtoὄieă ἶină ψuἵuὄe tiă (ἶeă laă nivele: Stuἶiiă εaὅteὄaleă iă
ϊoἵtoὄale)ă iăalumni,ăἵaὄeăauăpaὄtiἵipatăἵuăpὄeὐent ὄiă iăἵomuniἵ ὄiăînăἵaἶὄulăὅeὅiuniloὄ lunare
iă anualeă aleă ωἙωSχ,ă ἶină peὄioaἶaă βί1γ-βί1ζέă χἵeaὅt ă op iuneă ὅt ă ὅuἴă ὅemnulă inten ieiă
noaὅtὄeăἶeăaăὅpὄijiniăvaloὄifiἵaὄeaăaἵtivit iiăἶeăἵeὄἵetaὄeăἵaὄeăὅeăἶeὅf oaὄ ăînăἵaἶὄulăωentὄuluiă
înἵ ăἶeălaă fonἶaὄeaăὅa,ăînăanulă 1λλι,ăînă uὄmaăini iativeiă ἶomnului prof. univ. dr. Gheorghe-
Vlaἶăσiὅtoὄέăῇnăegal ăm ὅuὄ ,ăpὄeὐentulănum ὄăalăὄeviὅteiăὄepὄeὐint ăἵonἵὄetiὐaὄeaăunuiaăἶintὄeă
oἴieἵtiveleă ωἙωSχ,ă ὄeὅpeἵtiv,ă ὅtimulaὄeaă aἵtivit iiă ἶeă ἵeὄἵetaὄeă ἵuă ὅpὄijiniὄeaă ὄeὅuὄὅeloὄă
umaneă ἵaὄeă auă ὄealeă ἵompeten eă pὄofeὅionale în domeniile promovate prin misiunea
Centrului.
The new series of the CICSA Journal (Journal of Center for Comparative History of
Ancient Societies) begins with a collection of studies whose authors are mainly affiliate
members of the Center: students of the Faculty of History of Bucharest (enὄolleἶăinămaὅteὄ’ὅă
or doctoral programs) and alumni, who have presented their contributions during the monthly
and annual sessions of CICSA in 2013 and 2014. This choice is determined by our intention
to support the development of research taking place in our Center, since its founding in 1997,
at the initiative of prof. Gheorghe-Vlad Nistor. Equally, this is the pursuance of one of the
CICSA’ὅ objectives, namely to support the research and the individuals with genuine
professional skills in the areas promoted by our mission.

2
Cuprins/ Content:
Articole, studii/ Articles, Studies

Ciprian ωRE ἧ – Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Mortuary Rituals – a

Synthesis.....................................................................................................................................4

Liviu Mihail IANCU – Athenian Arché and its Impact on the Relationship between Athens
and Attika..................................................................................................................................17

Liviu Mihail IANCU – Hdt. 3.11 – Punishment, Human Sacrifice, Oath, Symposion? Ritual
and Group Cohesion.................................................................................................................28

ϊὄago ăἘ δεχἕἙă– Notes on Dura Europos Map.................................................................41

ωoὄinaăRuxanἶὄaăἕχVRἙ - TEFLEA – Urbanism and Elites – Rome and the Cities of Italy
(2nd Century BC – 1st Century AD): an Overview..................................................................52

Iosif TRIF – Gladiators on Film: Spectacle and History .........................................................73

Luciana-ἔloὄentinaăἕἘἙσϊ ă– L´Architecture Dogon ..........................................................82

Irina-Maria MANEA – Berserker: zwischen archaischem Krieger und künstlerischem

Motiv.........................................................................................................................................96

Reἵenὐiiă iăpὄeὐent ὄiăἶeăἵaὄte/ Reviews and Book Presentations

Roxana-ἕaἴὄielaă ωuὄἵ ,ă Elenism și romanitate în Moesia Inferior. Interferențe etnice și

lingvistice,ă Ἑa iἈ Editura Universit iiă „χlexanἶὄuă Ἑoanăωuὐa”,ăβί1β,ăppέă X, 334. ISBN 978-
973-703-769-5 – ϊὄago ăἘ δεχἕἙ…………………………………….......……………έέ107
Laura Dietrich, Die mittlere und spätere Bronzezeit und die ältere Eisenzeit in
Südostsiebenbürgen aufgrund der Siedlung von Rotbav, Universitätforschungen zur
prähistorischen Archäologie, Band 248, Bonn: Rudolf Habelt, 2014, 2 vol., 343 p., 92 fig., 6
anexe, 165 pl. ISBN 978-3-7749-3885-4. – Alexandra ÂRLEA.........................................111
Jean Andreau, L'économie du monde romain, Paris: Édition Ellipses, 2010, pp. 281, 2 pl.
ISBN 978-2-7298-5331-0 – ἔloὄiἵaă(ψτἘῇδ Eχ)ăεἙἘἧ …έ.............................................114
Cristian Olariu, Lumea romană și barbaricum în antichitatea târzieμ confruntare și
metamorfoză, (eἶέă îngὄijit ă ἶeă Elenaă τlaὄiu,ă ἔloὄiἵaă (ψohîl ea)ă εihu ),ă ψuἵuὄe tiἈ Editura
ἧniveὄὅit ii din Bucure ti,ă βί1γ,ă ppέă βζζ,ă βă h ὄ iέ ISBN-978-606-16-0315-2 – Ioana
ωRE ἧδESωἧ,ăδuἵian-Mircea MἧRE χσ........................................................................119
ωὄoniἵaăaἵtivit iiăωentὄuluiăἶeăἙὅtoὄieăωompaὄat ăaăSoἵiet iloὄăχntiἵeăβί1γέέέέέέ................122
ωὄoniἵaăaἵtivit iiăωentὄuluiăἶeăἙὅtoὄieăωompaὄat ăaăSoἵiet iloὄăAntice 2014......................125

3
 ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO
MORTUARY RITUALS – A SYNTHESIS

Ciprian CRE U
University of Bucharest

Abstract:
Anthropology and archaeology have a long tradition in shaping a discourse on the phenomenon of death.
From the very beginning of the archeological discipline there is to be noticed a special interest regarding the
funerary contexts – the funerary inventory, the body of the deceased and the treatment applied to it. This paper is
an attempt to review a vast literature concerned with the significance of funerary rituals, from both disciplines –
cultural anthropology and archaeology – while seeking to capture the emergence of some research paradigms that
marked the history of archaeological thought from the beginning of the 20th century till today. In an attempt to
determine what funerary archaeology means for the researcher of the 20th and 21th century, I bring into discussion
the two major current of archaeological thought known as processual and post-processual paradigms. What
information may be obtained from the analysis of mortuary rituals and what methodologies have been formulated
within such research? Which were the purposes of funerary rituals? What is the relevance of funerary archaeology
in shaping of a discourse about past societies? These are just some of the questions whose answers I am seeking
for.

Keywords: mortuary rituals, cultural anthropology, archaeological theory and method.

Introduction and methodological premises

The death phenomenon and funerary behaviour are some of the most fascinating and
productive areas of investigation within the scope of social sciences given their universal
nature, but mostly because of the complexity and diversity of the attitudes towards death and
theiὄă pὄofounἶă impliἵationὅέă χὅă εetἵalfă anἶă Ἐuntingtonă noteἶă ină theiὄă ἴookă “What could be
more universal than death? Yet what an incredible variety of responses it evokes. Corpses are
burned or buried, with or without animal or human sacrifice; they are preserved by smoking,
embalming, or pickling; they are eaten – raw, cooked, or rotten; they are ritually exposed as
carrion or simply abandoned; or they are dismembered and treated in a variety of these ways.
(...) The diversity of cultural reaction is a measure of the universal impact of death.”1
The concern for the funerary contexts was a steady in the archaeological research since
the pioneering period of this field in the nineteenth century. The archaeological materials from
funerary contexts had a significant share in researching various central aspects. Whether it was
about spectacular tombs or about monuments linked with certain burial complexes, these drew
significant attention to antiquarians and collectors. The richness of early Mycenaean graves, for
example, has struck the researcher from their discovery and excavation by Schliemann in 1876.2
Probably the interest in the funerary environment was the result of some spectacular
discoveries. If the findings were neither rich, nor they presented unusual traits, the research

1
Hungtington and Metcalf 1991, 24.
2
Schofield 2007, 15-19.

4
Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Mortuary Rituals – a Synthesis

inteὄeὅtă ἶiminiὅheἶă pὄopoὄtionallyέă ἦhiὅă waὅă theă ἵaὅe,ă ὅuἴὅequentlyă toă Sἵhliemann’ὅă finἶingὅ,ă
this time on the American continent. In 1896 Pepper and Wetherill began the first scientific
excavation within a site belonging to Native American Chaco culture. 3 They identified a large
number of skeletons, but the few ceramics and other specific artefacts from the archaeological
record cause loss of interest and finally giving up the research.4
The main purpose of this paper is to provide an overview on the historical evolution of
various approaches within funerary archaeology, arose from the desire to shape a coherent and
complete picture of this field of study from the enormous amount of bibliographic material. The
general works on this topic5 are rather fragmented – taking shape based on case studies, and
thus fail to outline the development of archaeological perspectives on funerary practices in a
synthetic manner, preferentially focusing on one or another of the dominant paradigms.
Nevertheless, these works come as an essential endeavour, given the existence of a huge body
of works which constitute the theoretical foundation and prerequisites of these of various
approaches.
In terms of methodology I opted for a chronological presentation, as encountered in
previous works dealing with the history of archaeology and archaeological thought.6 A
historiographical approach seemed the most appropriate way to address this issue, through the
selection of suggestive readings that helps to identify and analyse the main features of various
research directions.
Traditionally, with reference to the twentieth century, three major schools of
archaeological thought have been identified: culture-historical archaeology paradigm during the
first half, processualism and postprocessualism for the second half of the century. In an attempt
to determine what funerary archaeology means for researchers in the twentieth century, the last
two paradigms – processual and postporocessual archaeology – will be discussed more fully.
How funerary archaeology was seen within the two major current of thought and what is the
nature of the theoretical and methodological framework in which have been analysed the burial
practices and the funerary complex as a whole represents one of the central concerns of this
paper.
In the nineteenth century most of the data regarding the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age
came from funerary contexts, with settlements being less visible, with some exceptions such as
the tell sites in south-eastern Europe.7 Thus, funerary areas are subject to some systematic
archaeological excavations followed by major publications.8 In this context should be discussed
the research activities of the Danish archaeologist Jens J. A. Worsaae. His book, The Primeval
Antiquities of Denmark9, represents a milestone in the history of archeology. Worsaae applies

3
Sebastian 1996, 14.
4
Christenson 1989, 51.
5
Bartel 1982; Chapman et al. 1981; Parker Pearson 1999.
6
Chippindale et al. 2009; Johnson 2010; Trigger 1989a.
7
Chapman et al. 1981, 3.
8
Greenwell 1877 (It presents over 230 burial mounds, belonging to the pre-Roman period, grouped on the basis of
their geographical distribution. A substantial part (pp. 537-622) is dedicated to the analysis of individual skulls
discovered in graves.); Jewitt 1870 (Promote a historical archeology whose objective was to record facts, and by
no means an attempt to reconstruct the lives of the builders of those funerary structures or other "extraneous
matters" (Jewitt 1870, xxiii); concerned about the deceased position within the grave.) Anderson 1886 (a work
considered by Gordon Childe a comprehensive scientific study, without precedent (Ritchie and Ritchie 1991, 9).
9
Worsaae 1849.
5
Ciprian Cre u

and demonstrate the validity of Thomsen's tripartite system in researching funerary complexes.
These are classified chronologically, either by reference to the types of artefaἵtὅăoὄăἴyăgὄaveὅ’ă
morphology and observation of stratigraphic sequences. Worsaae, just like his forerunner
Thomsen, focuses more on the context of findings, rather than on developing a typology of the
artefacts themselves.10 ἧnlikeăΟantiquaὄian’ὅăaὄἵhaeology" whose primary objective was to find
artefacts, Worsaae sought to answer questions – What information can artefacts give us about
people's lives in the past?11

Funerary practices and social-cultural anthropology

Studies related to the phenomenon of death were a concern for social and cultural
anthropology12, with different approaches bearing the influences of different schools of thought
prevailing at some historical moment (e.g. evolutionism, functionalism, etc.). Archaeology has
been strongly influenced by the ideas expressed within cultural and social anthropology,
whence it borrows concepts and wordings in order to articulate its own theoretical foundations.
By the end of the nineteenth century at the beginning of twentieth century burial practices are
becoming a major point of interest, particularly in the area of sociology and anthropology
concerned with the issue of death. This stage is identified by Binford to be one of
“philosophical perspectives” in analysing funerary practices,13 serving primarily to the
construction of a discourse on (primitive) religion and beliefs.
Several authors have considered that funerary rituals are designed to restore and maintain
theăὅoἵialăἵoheὅionăaὅăwellăaὅătheăgὄoup’ὅăὅtὄuἵtuὄalăintegὄationέ14 A first important step was the
bringing into discussion of some aspects regarding social organization, as a relevant component
in the understanding of funerary practices, by the study of Hertz, Contribution à une étude sur
la représentation collective de la mort, one of the first to explore the complexity of funerary
rituals. For Hertz, concerned with the practice of secondary burials, death has a special
significance for the social consciousness, entailing a complex body of beliefs, emotions and
activities.15 Hertz examines funerary practices within a tripartite relationship (mourners – the
body of the deceased; mourners – the spirit of the deceased; the body of the deceased – his
spirit). Death is not just a physical event and the triggered emotion is not produced by the
simple observation of the changes that affect the body after death. Hertz provides a sociological
explanation: the emotion provoked by death varies in intensity according to the social status of
the deceased.16 The higher it is, the funeral arrangements are longer and the impact on social
consciousness is deeper. However, as a student of Durkheim, Hertz also analyses the funerary
rituals from a functionalist perspective: they were social events meant to meet the threat of

10
Greene and Moore 2010, 24.
11
Kelly and Thomas 2009, 8.
12
Tylor 1871; Morgan 1877; Frazer 1885; Hertz 1907 (published in 1907 in French, in Année sociologique 10, 48-
1γι,ă ἴetteὄă knownă afteὄă theă tὄanὅlationă intoă Engliὅhă ină 1λθίἈă ”χă ωontὄiἴutionă toă theă Stuἶyă ofă theă ωolleἵtiveă
Repὄeὅentationăofăϊeath“,ăină Death and the Right Hand, edited by R. Needham and C. Needham, Aberdeen, pp.
25-86; here I am using the English edition); Mauss 1899.
13
Binford 1971, 6-8.
14
Bendann 1930; Durkheim 2005; Evans-Pritchard 1965; Hertz 1960; Mandelbaum 1959; Radcliffe-Brown 1922
15
Hertz 1960, 27.
16
At the death of a chief... a true panic sweeps over the group... On the contrary, the death of a stranger, a slave,
or a child will go almost unnoticed. (Hertz 1960, 76)

6
Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Mortuary Rituals – a Synthesis

death, to restore order and ensure survival, endangered both by the event of death. 17 In the same
spirit of functionalism, for Malinowski also funerary rituals and religion itself have the specific
purpose to reintegrate the shattered group solidarity and re-establish its morale.18 Mandelbaum
tried to illustrate the multiple functions and the content complexity of funerary practices
focusing in particular on the cathartic purposes and on those of strengthening the group
solidarity.19
To sum up, in functionalist accepting ritual actions in funerary context had multiple
explanations: burial as a collective representation (Hertz), as a mean to create an obligation, as a
forum for the exchange of gifts (Mauss), as a mechanism for maintaining social stability
(Malinowski), and as an opportunity to strengthen family relationships (Radcliffe-Brown). In
addition to the research coming from socio-cultural anthropology burial practices were also a
ἵonἵeὄnă foὄă vaὄiouὅă ὅἵhoolὅă ofă “hiὅtoὄiἵal”ă anthὄopologyă whoὅeă maină puὄpoὅeă waὅă aă
reconstruction of history usually at a regional or continental level (Australia, South America).20
The archaeology of the first half of the past century has been dominated by a culture-historical
approach whose exponential advocate was Gordon Childe. His book The Dawn of European
Civilization21 provided a model for addressing European prehistory. Childe tried to deal with
the entire prehistory of the European continent. He defined prehistoric cultures based on the
typology of artifacts, rejecting the ideas of Kossinna relating to human progress due to the
biological superiority of the Indo-Europeans.22 Cultural groups (or cultures) were illustrated by
a series of elements that appear associated constantly including pottery, tools and funerary rites
and rituals.23 For Childe cultural "ensembles" were not equivalent with ethnic units. Observable
changes in the material culture were explained rather through the introduction of new ideas
from outside especially from the Aegean and Near East regions.
“Disposal of the Dead”,ă Kὄoeἴeὄ’ὅă ἵὄoὅὅ-cultural study,24 is one of the earliest major
contributions in the field of funerary studies. His goal is to understand the reasons for which
cultures adopt different strategies regarding the treatment of the dead through a cross-cultural
comparison, regardless of chronological limits.25 In its analysis are used examples from
Neolithic, as well as Antiquity and modern age. Within a given group customs may vary
according to status, sex / gender, age, but can also be idiosyncratic choices of the mourners. 26 A
historical approach is required in order to evaluate the patterns and their causality. Kroeber
argues that it is more likely that the economic and material circumstances have influenced the
diversity of funerary practices more than the thrill caused by the event of death.

17
McCane 2003, 4.
18
Malinowski 1974.
19
Mandelbaum 1959.
20
See Binford 1971, 9.
21
Childe 1925.
22
Trigger 1994, 11-14.
23
Childe 1929, v-vi.
24
Kroeber 1927.
25
Kroeber 1927, 309.
26
Kroeber 1927, 313.
7
Ciprian Cre u

Processual paradigm and a new way of seeing things

Until the 60s the main approach regarding archaeological material from funerary contexts
was a descriptive one in nature with an interpretation built upon the culture-historical paradigm
frame. Such approach entails a major limitation in the conclusions drawn from the
archaeological research due to the use of an inductive model,27 which meant gathering and
interpreting data about an archaeological site in order to describe cultural traits and to build
inferences about the occurrence of these features within other archaeological sites, without
seekingă explanationὅă (“why”ă anἶă “how”) of this phenomenon. Thus, it was not possible to
formulate some explicit hypotheses. Things were to change appreciably with the New
Archaeology.
The influence of anthropological structural functionalism had on archaeology, particularly
in the United States, has led to the definition of culture as a mechanism for adapting to the
environment, with technology as the primary adaptive mechanism. The central concept of
"function" is based precisely on such a definition of culture as a coping mechanism through
which a group of individuals can lead a social life, forming a community in a certain
environment.28 By "function" Radcliffe-Brown understands the contribution that a partial
activity has on the total activity of which is a constituent part.29 The function of a social
institution was defined as the correspondence between the social institution and the necessary
conditions of existence of the social organism.30 The function of a ritual is a social function.
Therefore (funerary) rituals are an expression of group solidarity, a coping mechanism.
Following the death of of a person the social cohesion is affected and the society must act to
reach a new equilibrium. The "ideological" background of this new movement came mostly
from the writings of the American anthropologist Leslie White on the structure, function and
evolution of human sociocultural systems. System theory represents maybe the most powerful
theoretical framework embedded in processual archaeology. Archaeology would be the cultural
anthropology of the past who understood the culture in terms of non-genetic adaptations to the
enviὄonmentέăἔὄomăψinfoὄἶ’ὅăpointăofăviewătheăgὄeatăaἶvantageăofătheăὅyὅtemiἵăappὄoaἵhăiὅăthată
allows archaeology to address issues of social or ideological structures, not just aspects
concerning economy and technology.31
Therefore, the study of funerary practices will be oriented towards the discovery of some
reasons of social nature giving rise to the diversity and variations thereof. The main thesis of
positivism, applied also in archaeology, argues that statements are meaningful only to the extent
that can be verified by means of the scientific method. The purpose of a positivist science was
objectivity, by opposing hypothesis testing to authoritative argument.32 The main aim of
archaeology as anthropology was to understand cultural processes on a large chronological and
spatial scale. In view of these claims, the understanding of these processes should have a
nomothetic nature, implying hypotheses testing in order to obtain a set of cross-cultural laws.

27
Krieger 2006, 36-7.
28
Morris 1987, 124.
29
Radcliffe-Brown 1935, 397.
30
Evans-Pritchard 2013, 54.
31
Binford 1962.
32
McGuire 2008, 56.

8
Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Mortuary Rituals – a Synthesis

Ἑnă hiὅă papeὄă “Mortuary Practices: ἦheiὄă Stuἶyă anἶă ἦheiὄă Potential”,33 Binford rejects
Kὄoeἴeὄ’ὅătheoὄyăaἵἵoὄἶingătoăwhiἵhăἴuὄialăpὄaἵtiἵeὅăweὄeănotăanăimpoὄtantăpaὄtăofătheăἵultuὄală
system but were a separate entity. Through the use of ethnographic analogies34 Binford
demonstrates that the differentiation and complexity of funerary rites and of the related
inventory reflect the compartmentalization of distinct social personas withină theă ὅoἵiety’ὅă
structure. Through the social person of an individual I understand a composite made up of
social identities held throughout life – age, sex, social position and social affiliation – or
assigned to death – cause or place of death.35 More briefly, the variability of funerary practices
of a culture is a function of social differentiation.36 This is the main criterion in determining the
treatment of the deceased. In specialized literature the analytical approach which assumes that
the social role of an individual will be reflected in the funerary treatment, in the energy invested
into it, and in the richness of the inventory it is known as the Saxe-Binford approach (or
hypothesis).
Saxe’ὅă Phϊă theὅiὅă “Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices”37 complies with the
processual paradigm, by submitting for testing eight hypotheses to reveal the rules that govern
the burial practices as well as the relationship between them and the existing social
organization.38 Just like Binford, Saxe believes that by observing a whole range of funerary
practices within a given culture may be inferred the nature of the social system. The study has a
functional (since it involves the establishment of rules in how elements of a socio-cultural
system interact with each other) and cross-cultural character (wishes to determine, by
comparison, whether there is regularity in the functional relationships that are not specific to a
single system), thus becoming an exponentially case to illustrate the proposed methodologies of
processual archaeology.
As one can notice, particularly in the 1970s, stands out the attempts to reconstruct the
social systems of the past based on data from funerary contexts based on the principle that there
is a direct link between material culture associated with funerary practices and the form and
complexity of social organization.39 A successful approach following this direction generally
depends on (at least) three factors: one that is based on anthropological theory – an
understanding of the reasons for cultural variety and differentiation within burial customs; an
understanding of the relationships between mortuary practices and the formation and
tὄanὅfoὄmationă ofă theă aὄἵhaeologiἵală ὄeἵoὄἶă (aὄἵhaeologiἵală ‘miἶἶle-ὄange’ă theoὄy40);
methodological issues concerning the choice of analytical methods relevant to the questions
posed of the archaeological data after consideration of the previous factors.41
The merits of the New Archaeology have been recognized especially with regard to the
methodological framework – a paradigm that is based on new and different goals, a

33
Binford 1971.
34
Analogies were not used for explanations, but in the construction of hypotheses about the past that could be
tested by relating to the archaeological register.
35
See Saxe 1970, 7; Binford, 1971 (Table 1 and 2).
36
Morris 1992, 22.
37
Saxe 1970.
38
Saxe 1970, 3.
39
Saxe 1970; Binford 1971; Brown 1971; Shennan 1975; Goldstein 1976; Tainter 1978.
40
For a general discussion on middle-range theory see Binford 1977. For behavioral archaeology and formation
processes of the archaeological record see Schiffer 1976, 1987.
41
Chapman 1987.
9
Ciprian Cre u

methodology that supports comparative research approach and allows testing of hypotheses and
a systematic definition of culture and environment.42 The frequent use of quantitative and
statistical methods and the concern for the research design are also among the elements that
make up the processual legacy.

Postprocessual archaeology and the new roles of funerary practices

It is obvious that the processual approach has continued to influence archaeological

research until today, because of these merits. However, in the early 1980s critical attitudes arose
againὅtătheăpὄoἵeὅὅuală“orthodoxism”, the grievances being related usually to the way in which
archeology developed a research method closely linked to a systemic vision on society and
culture.
This new movement, the postprocessual archaeology appears as a manifestation of the
growing influence of postmodern thinking within social sciences.43 In the field of cultural
anthropology, at the end of the seventh decade and the beginning of the eighth of the past
century, emerges the symbolic anthropology (known as semiotic or interpretive anthropology in
the case of Clifford Geertz). Geertz is considered one of the leading figures of symbolic
anthropology. He defines culture as a pattern of meanings, of significances embodied in
symbols, which is historical transmitted, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in
symbolic forms by which people communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge and
attitudes towards life.44 Archaeological research will focus towards the study of ideology,
symbols and meanings starting from some elements of material culture identified in the
archaeological record.
In the last decades of the twentieth century have occurred some important changes in
humanistic and social sciences, whose manifestations were included in the so-called
“postmodern turn”.45 If modernism desired the picture of a totality and had the ambition of
reaching definitive and objective knowledge, postmodernism is against these objectives.
Instead of seeking order, coherence and the existence of general laws it promotes diversity,
plurality, the anti-normative and the fragmentation that characterizes the contemporary world.
Hodder identifies some features that make archaeology suitable for the postmodern
context, characterized by a fragmented and decontextualized time. In the first place, it comes
the fragmentary character of archaeological finds to be considered.46 Hodder refers primarily to
the distant prehistoric past and to the limited knowledge of the context in which prehistoric
objects were produced. In the second place, we face a paradox of the archaeological items: they
are real, tactile, thus giving the impression that they bring the past closer and allow us to
experience another reality, yet at the same time this reality is a distant one, and unrelated to the
present.47
In archaeology, the postmodern turn began to take shape with the foundation of the
postprocessual approach in particular through the contribution of the British archaeologist Ian
42
Zubrow 1972, 182.
43
Knapp 1996.
44
Geertz 1973, 89.
45
Hassan 1987.
46
"Archaeologists dig up fragments, bits and pieces of pots and societies." (Hodder 1995, 237).
47
Hodder 1995, 237-8.

10
Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Mortuary Rituals – a Synthesis

Hodder. In theă fiὄὅtă ἵhapteὄă ofă hiὅă ἴookă “Symbolic and Structural Archaeology” Hodder
summarizes the criticism of processual approach. The functionalist perspective can´t explain the
cultural variety and uniqueness in an appropriate manner. Yet another weak point in this
approach comes from the relationship established between the individual and society by
marginalizing the creativity and intentionality of individuals, the latter being considered almost
a set of mechanisms for meeting the needs of society. Hodder believes that individuals can´t be
just a bunch of instruments, and that a proper explanation about the social systems should take
into account the assessments and individual goals.48
One of the central issues of the debate was represented by the forms of knowledge
suitable for a social science, the way in which society can be conceived, the functioning of the
archaeological discipline, its ideologies and cultural policies in the postmodern present. The
debate led to a polarization of positions: on one hand we have a scientific research aiming at an
objective knowledge, and on the other side a relativistic interpretation of postmodern
expression. Shanks and Hodder believes that the various postprocessual approaches – cognitive,
contextual, symbolical and structural – can be gathered under the name of interpretative
archaeologies (which works through interpretation).
Just like in the case of postmodernist movement in philosophy, there is no single
postprocessual archaeological school of thought. Trigger distinguishes two types 49: the
moderates and the hyper-relativists. The first admit that the archaeological evidence exists and
that these can be studied. They do not reject all knowledge in an absolute way but tend to focus
on identifying those hypotheses which have beenăaἵἵepteἶ,ătὄyingătoăἶevelopă“inteὄpὄetationὅ”,
without claiming absolute objectivity. The second category rejects all truth and knowledge and
questions the human capacity to perceive any personal or physical reality. Any analysis of
archaeological finds is completely subjective the interpretations being created by our own
prejudices. For them the study of archaeological findings is a mechanism for achieving specific
political goals not something worthy of study in itself.50 For Shanks and Tilley51 the
aὄἵhaeologiὅtὅ’ă ὄoleă ὄequiὄeὅă empathiἵă ἵapaἵity,ă inὅpiὄation,ă imaginativeă ὄeἵonὅtὄuἵtionă anἶă
emotional affinity archeology becoming a personal confrontation with the past.
The processual paradigm was based on the idea that material culture plays an important
role in how social relations are constructed is not simply a reflection of the organization of
society; the individual must be a part of the theories on material culture and social change.
With regard the mortuary practices probably the most important objection to the
processual approach relates to the increased attention given to the representation of the social
person (social persona) of the deceased. Postprocessual archaeologists argue that the hypothesis
proposed by Binford and Saxe – funerary rituals are a direct reflection of the social structure –
omits their ideological and symbolic nature. Funerary practices are not just one quantifiable
coordinate in measuring the complexity of societies from equalitarian to hierarchical forms.
Unlike Binford, Hodder considers that burial rituals are not passive reflections about certain

48
Hodder 1982a, 5.
49
Trigger 1989b.
50
Fotiadis 1994.
51
Who in two of their works, Re-Constructing Archaeology (1992) and Social Theory and Archaeology (1988), are
promoting a dogmatic skepticism.
11
Ciprian Cre u

aspects of life. At death, the individual often becomes what was not life. 52 Therefore, the study
of funerary practices should focus on attitudes towards death that may bring distortions of
reality.
Parker Pearson believes that the study of social organization, as it appears reflected in
burial practices was based on the role theory, a component of the inadequate conception of
social systems.53 He also proposes a reconsideration of the data coming from funerary contexts.
The reconstruction of social organization by identifying roles can be placed in opposition to the
idea that supports that social systems are not constituted of roles but by recurrent social
practices. The funerary context generates actions and communications that differ from everyday
practical communication. Funerary rituals are sensitive to ideological manipulation in the
construction of social strategies54 with specific goals such as maintaining influence and
dominance of a group. In a society symbolic links find expression in some specific associations
between forms of material culture. From this point of view, for Parker Pearson the analysis
should focus on the following aspects: spatial positioning of the deposition places for the dead
in relation to the world of the living (the existence of boundary elements between these two),
differentiation between buried individuals (what roles are expressed and idealized within the
funerary practices and why), what objects are associated exclusively with the deceased, the
relationship between the context of deposition and other forms of expressions related to death
(ancestor shrines, cenotaphs etc.) Such analysis leads to the consideration of death as a
favourable social affirmation platform, a ground of dealing and manipulations. Undertakings
are risky, with chance of failure or success and with predisposition to perform and recreate
rituals, leading to new forms with the risk of a failure.55
Funeral rituals are also seen as an enabling environment transactions and renegotiation of
alliances by strengthening social obligations and solidarity.56 With the death of an individual
the social relationships established by him also come to an end. This system of relations must
be recreated and renegotiated by the intervention of survivors and descendants of the dead. The
renegotiation of statutes and social roles lead to competition and exchange, and the emergence
of new alliances. But how are these dynamic elements identifiable in the archaeological record?
Oestigaard and Goldhahn distinguish two ways: either by the occurrence of foreign imported
exotic objects within the funerary inventory, or by a symbolic manifestation through the tomb
itself.
As we have noticed the postprocessual approach is interested in what burial customs
could tell us about relations of power, symbolism and their cultural meaning. Funerary practices
and the material elements within do not directly reflect the organization of society in the past
being rather symbolic representations of social structures that can be manipulated and
negotiated. Thus, rituals can be used both as means of reversing or masking the social relations
and as the presentation of idealized situations of relations between the social actors.

52
Hodder 1982b, 201.
53
Parker Pearson 1982.
54
Parker Pearson 1982, 99.
55
Chesson 2001, 3.
56
Oestigaard and Goldhahn 2006.

12
Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Mortuary Rituals – a Synthesis

Conclusions

I tried to illustrate through this brief presentation the key features of the two main
orientations in the past half century archaeology to understand how they have shaped the
perception of funerary phenomenon, rites and rituals. I considered useful for the present
purpose a chronological approach whilst operating a selection of certain works regarded either
as milestones or indicative of a paradigm change.57
As pointed out, anthropology exerted a major influence on archaeology in general (on
funerary archaeology in particular). Roughly, up to the 1960s, the main approach on
archaeological material from funerary context was descriptive in nature, constructing an
interpretation built upon the skeleton of the culture-historical paradigm. The New Archaeology
fuὄtheὄă ὅuggeὅteἶă aă “ἶeἵoἶing”ă ină ὅoἵiologiἵală teὄmὅă ofă theă aὄἵhaeologiἵală ὄeἵoὄἶ,ă thὄoughă aă
systemic approach, allowing archaeology to address issues of social and ideological structures.
Therefore, the study of funerary practices was oriented towards the discovery of some reasons
of social nature giving rise to their diversity and variations.
In a postmodern context (in cultural and, also, historical ways), significant changes
occurred in humanities and social sciences.58 The postmodern turn in archaeology began to take
shape with the promotion of the new postprocessual approach. It criticizes the attempts to
understand human activity in terms of functionalism – systems theory, or in those of
environmental interaction between biological organisms and the physical world. The material
culture plays an important role in how social relationships are built, is not merely a reflection of
society organization; the individual must be part of theories about material culture and social
change.
The dynamic theoretical and methodological framework of archaeology has been
influenced by default the perception of funerary phenomena, causing changes in the way and
perspective from which they are viewed, and also in the set of questions formulated by the
archaeologist within a research program: from the possibility of reconstruction of societal
organization and differentiation of status and position within society by analysing the funerary
environment and practices, to the perspective of death and associated rituals being manipulated
by those who live, the analysis focusing on key-elements such as symbols, ideologies and
power relationships.
We should always keep in mind the fact that the nature of archaeological discipline has a
changing character, being suspended between history and anthropology, humanities and natural
sciences. It should be noted that, in practice, an archaeological paradigm does not exclude
another. I think the best solution, in order to obtain a more coherent image over the past, as
complete as possible it could be obtained, is that of a complementary discourse with both, the
apollonian positivist beliefs of the processual school, and the Dionysian romantic tendencies of
postprocessual archaeology.59

57
I consider such an approach as an optimal solution given the immense body of bibliographic material dedicated
to this issues.
58
See Hassan 1987.
59
Bintliff 1993, fig 2.
13
Ciprian Cre u

Bibliography:
Anderson, J. 1886. Scotland in Pagan Times: The Bronze and Stone Ages, Edinburgh: David Douglas.
Bartel, B. 1982. „A Historical Review of Ethnological and Archaeological Analyses of Mortuary Practices”, in
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 32-58.
Bendann, E. 1930. Death Customs: An Analytical Study of Burial Rites, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Binford, L. R. 1962. „χὄἵhaeologyăaὅăχnthὄopology”,ăinăAmerican Antiquity 28, 217-25.
Binford, L. R. 1971. „εoὄtuaὄyăPὄaἵtiἵeὅἈăἦheiὄăStuἶyăanἶăἦheiὄăPotential”ăinăMemoirs of the Society for American
Archaeology 25, 6-29.
Binford, L. R. 1977. For theory building in archaeology, New York: Academic Press.
Bintliff, J. 1993. „Whyă Ἑnἶianaă Joneὅă iὅă ὅmaὄteὄă thană theă poὅt-Pὄoἵeὅὅualiὅtὅ”,ă ină Norwegian Archaeological
Review 26, 31-100.
Brown, J. A. 1971. Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, Memoirs of the Society for
American Archaeology 25.
Chapman, R. 1987. „Mortuary practices: society, theory building and archaeology”, in Boddington, A. A. N.
Garland and R. C. Janaway (eds.), Death, Decay and Reconstruction. Approaches to Archaeology and Forensic
Science, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 198-213.
Chapman, R.., Kinnes I. and Randsborg K. 1981. The Archaeology of Death, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Chesson, M. S. 2001. „Soἵială εemoὄy,ă Ἑἶentity,ă anἶă ϊeathἈă χnă Ἑntὄoἶuἵtion”, in Chesson, M. S. (ed.) Social
Memory, Identity, and Death: Anthropological Perspectives on Mortuary Rituals, Arlington: American
Anthropological Association, 1-11.
Childe, V. G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization, London: Kegan Paul.
Childe, V. G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Chippindale, C., Bentley R. L. and Maschner H. D. G. 2009. Handbook of Archaeological Theories, Rowman &
Littlefield.
Christenson, A., L. 1989. Tracing Archaeology's Past: The Historiography of Archaeology, SIU Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1965. Theories of primitive religion, Oxford: Claredon Press.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 2013. Social Anthropology, London: Routledge.
Fotiadis, M. 1994. „Whată iὅă χὄἵhaeologyțὅă Οεitigateἶă τἴjeἵtiviὅmΟă εitigateἶă ă ψyςă ωomenentὅă onă ă Wylie”,ă ină
American Antiquity 59: 545-555.
Frazer, J. G. 1885. On Certain Burial Customs as Illustrative of the Primitive Theory of the Soul, Harrison & Sons.
Geertz, C. 1973. Religion As a Cultural System in Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic
Books, 87-125.
Goldstein, L. G. 1976. Spatial Structure and Social Organization: Regional Manifestations of Mississippian
society, Northwestern University (PhD thesis).
Greene, K. and T. Moore 2010. Archaeology: An Introduction, 5th edition, Routledge.
Greenwell, W. 1877. British Barrows, a record of the examination of sepulchral mounds in various parts of
England, together with description of figures of skulls general remarks of prehistoric crania and an appendix by
George Rolleston, M. D. Oxford, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hassan, I. H. 1987. The postmodern turn: essays in postmodern theory and culture, Ohio State University Press.

14
Anthropological and Archaeological Approaches to Mortuary Rituals – a Synthesis

Hertz, R. 1960. „A Contribution to the Study of the Collective Representation of Death”, in Needham R. and C.
Needham (ed.). Death and the Right Hand, Aberdeen University Press, 25-86.
Hodder, I. 1982a. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. 1982b. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hodder, I. 1995. Theory and Practice in Archaeology, London: Routledge.
Huntington, R. and Metcalf, P. 1997. Celebrations of Death: The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual, 2nd edition,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jewitt, L. 1870. Grave- mounds and Their Contents: A Manual of Archaeology, as Exemplified in the Burial of the
Celtic, the Romano- British, and the Anglo- Saxon Periods, London: Groombridge and Sons.
Johnson, M. 2010. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, John Wiley & Sons.
Kelly, R. and Thomas D. 2009. Archaeology, 5th edition, Boston: Cengage Learning.
Knapp, B. A. 1996. „χὄἵhaeologyăWithoutăἕὄavityἈăPoὅtmoἶeὄniὅmăanἶătheăPaὅt”,ă ină Jorunal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 3, 127-158.
Krieger, W. H. 2006. Can There be a Philosophy of Archaeology? Processual Archaeology and the Philosophy of
Science, Lexington Books.
Kroeber, A. L. 1927. „ϊiὅpoὅalăofătheăἶeaἶ,ăinăAmerican Anthropologist 29, 308-15.
Malinowski, B. 1974. Magic, Science and Religion. London: Souvenir Press.
Mandelbaum, D. 1959. Social Uses of Funeral Rites, in Feifel, H. (ed.) The Meaning of Death, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 189-217.
McCane, B. R. 2003. Roll Back the Stone: Death and Burial in the World of Jesus, Trinity Press International.
McGuire, R. H. 2008. Archaeology as Political Action, University of California Press.
Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through
Barbarism to Civilization, New York.
Morris, I. 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oestigaard, T and Goldhahn, J. 2006. „ἔὄomătheăϊeaἶătoătheăδivingἈăϊeathăaὅăἦὄanὅaἵtionὅăanἶăRe-negotiationὅ”,ă
in Norwegian Archaeological Review 39, 27-48.
Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study, in Hodder, I.
(ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99-112.
Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial, Texas A&M University Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 1922. The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social Anthropology, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Radcliffe-ψὄown,ă χέă Rέă 1λγηέă „On the Concept of Function in Social Science”, in Radcliffe-Brown, A. R.,
Structure and Function in Primitive Society, New York: Free Press.
Ritchie, G. and Ritchie, A. 1991. Scotland: Archaeology and Early History, Edinburgh University Press.
Saxe, A. 1970. Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, University of Michigan (PhD thesis).
Schiffer, M. B. 1976. Behavioral Archaeology, New York: Academic Press.
Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Schofield, L. 2007. The Mycenaeans, Getty Publications.

15
Ciprian Cre u

Sebastian, L. 1996. The Chaco Anasazi: Sociopolitical Evolution in the Prehistoric Southwest, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Shennan, S. 1975. „ἦheăSoἵialăτὄganiὐationăatăψὄanἵ”,ăinăAntiquity 49, 279-86.
Tainter, J. 1978. „Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems”, in M. Schieffer (ed.) Advances
in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, New York: Academic Press, 105-41.
Trigger, B. 1994. „ωhilἶe’ὅăRelevanἵeătoătheă1λλί’ὅ”, in Harris, D. R. (ed.) The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe:
Contemporary Perspectives, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 9-34.
Trigger, B. G. 1989a. A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trigger, ψέă ἕέă 1λκλἴέă „Ἐypeὄὄelativiὅm,ă Reὅponὅiἴility,ă anἶ theă ă Soἵială Sἵienἵeὅ”,ă ină Canadian Review of
Sociology and Anthropology 26, 776-797.
Tylor, E. B. 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art,
and Custom, London: John Murray.
Worsaae, J. J. A. 1849. The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark, London: John Henry Parker.
Zubrow, E. B. W. 1972. „Enviὄonment,ăSuἴὅiὅtenἵe,ăanἶăSoἵietyἈăἦheăωhangingăχὄἵhaeologiἵalăPeὄὅpeἵtive”,ăină
Annual Review of Anthropology 1, 179-206.

16